Monthly Archives: August 2012

The Osipova Verdict: “They Want to Murder Taisiya”

limonov-eduard.livejournal.com
Eduard Limonov
August 28, 2012
They Want to Murder Taisiya

I was running errands in the car when I heard about the Taisiya Osipova verdict. They gave her a savage sentence. Eight years behind bars for a women with diabetes is the death penalty.

They want to murder Taisiya.

Who among them is the chief sadist and flayer, I don’t know. Did Smolensk propose eight years, and Moscow said, “Well, we don’t mind”? That’s most likely how it was.

It is noticeable how the sentences given to National Bolsheviks are harsher than simple reprisals. Many times over.

We will not forgive.

_____

www.huffingtonpost.com

Taisiya Osipova Jailed: Wife Of Russian Opposition Sentenced To 8 Years In Prison
By NATALIYA VASILYEVA 08/28/12

MOSCOW — A Russian opposition activist was sentenced Tuesday to eight years in prison in a review of her drug-related case – twice as long as prosecutors had requested in a ruling that drew immediate opposition outrage.

Taisiya Osipova and her supporters have maintained that police planted four grams of heroin in her home in 2010 in revenge for her refusal to testify against her husband, Sergei Fomchenkov, also a senior figure in The Other Russia opposition movement. A witness for the defense testified at the trial that he saw a police officer put the drugs in Osipova’s apartment.

Osipova had originally been sentenced to 10 years, but a higher court ordered a review of her case.

Tuesday’s unexpectedly harsh verdict comes two weeks after three members of punk provocateur band Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in prison for a surprise anti-Vladimir Putin performance in Moscow’s main cathedral. The decision sparked criticism in Russia and abroad as disproportionate.

It’s also being viewed as an ominous sign ahead of the trial of 11 people who were arrested on suspicion of taking part in clashes with the police at a protest rally in May this year.

Eduard Limonov, the leader of The Other Russia party, told Interfax on Tuesday that “this verdict is not only a political one, it’s also terrifying revenge.”

Fomchenkov reported the verdict on his Twitter account. The court in Smolensk was not available to confirm the verdict.

Prosecutors had asked for four years in prison for Osipova.

Osipova, 28, has been in jail since her arrest in 2010 and was originally sentenced to 10 years in prison in December 2011. A higher court in February overturned that decision, ordering the review of her case, while Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said in an interview that the sentence was too harsh.

Left-wing opposition leader Sergei Udaltsov described the verdict in his Twitter as “a triumph of lawlessness and cynicism.”

Osipova was one of the most prominent names on a list of people activists described as political prisoners submitted to then-President Medvedev in February.

Mikhail Fedotov, head of the presidential council on human rights, in an interview with the Interfax news agency on Tuesday described the verdict as a “legal mistake.”

Like her husband Osipova is a member of The Other Russia, although she hasn’t been active since her daughter was born in 2006.

Opposition activists have staged regular protests against Osipova’s prosecution, arguing that charges against Osipova were aimed to pressure her for information on her husband, Limonov’s right hand man, who was trying to get the movement officially registered as a political party at the time of her arrest.

Osipova’s supporters also said that witnesses confirmed police discovering drugs at Osipova’s place were members of pro-Kremlin youth groups.

Police searched Fomchenkov’s Moscow apartment shortly before Osipova’s arrest in connection with “an economic case,” details of which were never communicated to the Other Russian functionary.

Osipova’s lawyers on Tuesday pledged to appeal the ruling. The Other Russia activists are planning one-man pickets across Moscow on Saturday to protest the verdict.

_____

politzeki.tumblr.com

16 August 2012
Dreaming of justice: The Taisiya Osipova case turns into an absurd and cruel farce
By Oksana Chelysheva
Translated by Jonathan Bridges

Roughly a year ago, in one of my articles on the fate of Taisiya Osipova, ‘the Smolensk hostage’, I wrote about the case’s media coverage. At that point in time there were few publications that even hinted at fact that the case had been fabricated.

At the time the situation was being covered on a site created in Taisiya’s defence. The site was maintained largely by Sergei Fomchenkov, Taisiya’s husband. The blog of the art group (‘War’) was still the only source of information about the case. One of the members of the group, Leonid Nikolaev, still managed to pay occasional visits to Smolensk, where Taisya’s absurd trial, presided over by Judge Dvoryanchikov, started to unfold like a scene from Homer. I would like to offer my thanks to the international network of human rights organisations – the World Organization Against Torture – who even at this early stage took up Taisiya Osipova’s case and began questioning the Russian authorities on a regular basis.

A lot has changed in the last year.

Taisiya Osipova’s case has been covered by practically all of the Russian media, with the exception of Rossiyskaya Gazeta (‘The Russian Newspaper’). Even foreign media has managed to keep up with the case. Over the last year, articles about Taisiya have appeared in respectable American, Italian, Spanish, Slovakian and Finnish publications.

A campaign started by Maksim Gromov to support political prisoners’ children played a crucial role in the matter. The story of Katrine, Taisiya and Sergei’s daughter, told in photographs by Vladmimir Telegin, found sympathy amongst many people. In the spring, Vladimir Telegin put on a photo exhibition of Katrine with members of the Voina group and Yuri Shevchuk in Helsinki.

A campaign emerged from the positive response to this modest exhibition. As part of the campaign, photographs were sent to the President of the Russian Federation in the form of postcards containing short demands on Katrine’s behalf, such as ‘Let my mummy go’. Influential human rights organisations were not responsible for the hundreds of photographs. The whole thing was started by one Finnish woman who heard Taisiya Osipova’s story at the exhibition.

Information concerning Taisiya’s case even reached Dmitry Medvedev, Russian president at the time. When Medvedev was asked about Osipova at a meeting with students from MGU (Moscow State University), it emerged that the president had heard this surname in context before: “Ah, yes, sometimes rather severe sentences are given”.

The presidential council on human rights, headed by Mikhail Fedotov, has put Osipova’s name on a list of persons eligible for pardoning. On Medvedev’s orders, the Prosecutor General’s office checked all thirty cases. But, given the way these checks are normally carried, our confidence in them has been reduced to zero. Nevertheless, in Osipova’s case, the procedure adopted by the prelimary investigation and that implemented by the lower court were both so odious that even the Prosecutor General’s office was obliged to acknowledge “the obvious flaws and violations in the conduct of the preliminary investigation”.

This was followed by a statement from Medvedev in which he said he was “prepared to consider the possibility of pardoning Osipova on the condition that she write the request for pardon herself and plead guilty”. Notice the president’s wording, himself being a law graduate and a campaigner against legal nihilism.

He deliberately stressed the necessity for Osipova to plead guilty, which is not a legal requirement.

Since the very first day of her detainment in November 2010, Taisaya has refused to plead guilty, insisting that she did not commit the crime she is charged with. Having refused such mercy, Taisiya’s decision has undoubtedly been an agonising one. Bargaining with her conscience was something that she could not do and living with this slanderous lie would have been practically impossible for her.

On 15 February 2012, the penal chamber of the Smolensk Regional Court, made up of chairman Bezykornov and Judges Rumyantseva and Elizarova, revoked Judge Dvoryanchikov’s decision to sentence Osipova to ten years’ imprisonment. The case was sent to the Zadneprovsky District Court (where Osipova had previously been sentenced to ten years) for re-examination by a different set of judges.

Roughly a month after Judge Dvoryanchikov‘s ridiculous sentence had been revoked, I received a letter from a colleague of mine. In response to a question on how to free Taisiya, he wrote: “The case has after all been won. Even the president spoke about her. The sentence has been revoked. Is there any point in making a fuss about it?”

Yes, there is. There is every reason to make a fuss about it. As long as Taisiya Osipova is behind bars, the case will not have been won. Can her defence campaign be called a success if a new judge shouts at the lawyers and at Osipova herself during the court sittings? Taisiya Osipova is still in Pre-trial Detention Centre (SIZO) no. 1, in Smolensk. The possibility of another ‘guilty’ verdict cannot be ruled out entirely.

Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people to sit in on Osipova’s court case.

Summer 2012 was marked by disasters and violence. After the inauguration of President Vladimir Putin, the number of political prisoners has been increasing not by the day but by the hour. Some of those who used to go to Smolensk to sit in on the hearings at Zadneprovsky Court are now being investigated in connection with other criminal matters themselves.

Appeals made to EU embassies and international human rights organisations for assistance in monitoring the court proceedings in Smolensk have not yet been successful. Either the court hearings coincided with Christmas and Easter, which made immediate decision making impossible, or strange explanations were given in response to Fomchenkov’s appeals as to why this or that “organisation did not have the financial and human resources to send a diplomatic mission to Smolensk”.

Fine then, let’s put it another way. Having the available resources is difficult. But there are documents available: court rulings, appeal court rulings, publications by journalists who have managed to get far away from Moscow and Smolensk. Ultimately, it would be possible to meet with Taisiya Osipova’s lawyers and find out what is happening and why an increasing number of people, familiar with the evidence put forward, think that Taisiya Osipova is not only an innocent victim of arbitrary rule but also a prisoner of conscience.

On 31 December 2010, the public prosecutor of the Zadneprovsky district of Smolensk signed Taisiya Osipova’s bill of indictment: “In Smolensk, at some point before 21 October 2010, a precise date and time were not established during the preliminary investigation, Osipova intentionally and of her own accord sought out an individual, unidentified during the course of the investigation, from whom she unlawfully obtained a narcotic substance, namely heroin, on a regular basis in an unidentified location with intent to illegally sell. She subsequently kept the aforementioned substance at her place of residence out of mercenary interest in material gain by dealing in narcotics. . .”

In other words, Osipova was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on the basis of this “drug dealer”. The time and place of the crime have not been established, nor has the identity of the drug dealer. Osipova received time not for drug dealing but for having “the specific intent to commit a crime”. Bearing in mind that proving intent is one of the most difficult tasks of any investigation, we can consider the employees of the Smolensk Centre “E”, who organised and handled Taisiya Osipova’s case, to be true investigatory champions.

They put this woman behind bars based solely on the fact that she had “the specific intent to commit a crime”.

The same people’s testimonies make up the evidential basis: the ‘anonymous’ witnesses Ludmila Timchenkova and Denis Zvyagin (their names were changed supposedly to protect their identity), Semenistova and Kazakova, members of the pro-Kremlin youth organisation Nashi, and Savchenkov, a police investigator from the Centre for Combating Extremism, otherwise known as Centre “E”.

At the very start of this cynical epic, Captain of Justice S. A. Ivanova, an investigator for the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Smolensk, compiled a list of people who needed to be brought in for questioning. And a separate comment reads: “There are no witnesses for the defence.”

It all seemed so simple for the staff at Centre “E”: no one will ever notice that the witnesses and court have been trained to perform like circus animals. They had every chance of pulling off ‘Action Revenge’ on Fomchenkov smoothly and swimmingly.

It was apparent, even at this point, that both the search protocol and list of ‘witnesses’ were nothing but a pure fabrication. For a start, the search protocol states that Taisiya was home alone when the search was carried out – yet the video footage clearly shows another person in handcuffs sitting next to Taisiya. This person is Anton Mandrik. But for Centre “E” he was just another superfluous detail, which is why police investigator Savchenkov asked him ‘to sit quietly if he [didn’t] want to end up behind bars as well.’ When the court asked about witness Mandrik, Savchenkov simply said that he had forgotten about him.

At the hearing on 11 July 2011, Taisiya Osipova said that while her property was being searched on 23 November 2010, she had asked Savchenkov: “When will this drama end?”, to which he had replied: “Get your husband to come here and then this drama will end.”

Savchenkov made sure that there was as much drama as possible. His statements are included in Taisiya’s indictment: “Since I had police information about the fact that there were three fighting dogs in the house and that Osipova possessed weapons which she could have used at any time without warning, we decided to arrest Osipova with the help of the special forces unit.”

Evidently, Savchenkov had done his homework on Osipova and had reason to be wary of entering her property, where he ran more than just the risk of being hit in the face with a bunch of carnations, as happened to the lucky governor of Smolensk. And that’s why this terrorist-fighting ‘hero’ went into Osipova’s house with the protection of the special forces unit, shielding himself from the threatening National Bolshevik ‘drug dealer’ who knows how to use a gun, how to throw a punch and who was surrounded by French bulldogs, almost as if she were surrounded by a stone wall.

As for the three fighting dogs, the dog experts from Centre “E” are clearly useless. Only a complete idiot would try to pass off a French bulldog as a security threat . . . to his trousers. They also forgot the potential danger posed by the bunny rabbits Taisiya was holding and the ferret in the kitchen with its sharp teeth.

A list of the following confiscated items figures in the search protocol of Osipova’s property: five bags of heroin, ten syringes, a bottle containing the residue of a dark-coloured liquid, mobile phones, a computer and also a marked 500-rouble note. It is significant that according to the case evidence, the search was a result of a routine test purchase, which included Timchenkova giving Osipova 3000 marked roubles.

Sergei Fomchenkov commented on this mysterious detail: “The notes weren’t even marked. According to police files, the police just wrote down the serial numbers beforehand. If they had really wanted to catch the dealer, the notes would have been covered in a special substance which leaves traces on the hands of whoever handles it. That would have been objective evidence, but this was not what was done, since no drugs were actually sold. A single note had been put in the same set of chest of drawers that the drugs had been put in. According to the records on the test purchase, Timchenkova supposedly gave 3000 roubles to Osipova, in the following denominations: ten 100-rouble bills, two 500-rouble bills and one 1000-rouble bill – 13 bills in total. The search protocol states that only one 500-rouble bill was found at Taisiya’s address. The police investigator and attesting witnesses testified that no one had entered or left the address in the interval between the drugs being purchased and the property being searched. At the previous hearing, police investigator Smolin was asked: ‘What happened to the remaining twelve banknotes?’, to which he responded: ‘I don’t know. Perhaps she ate them.’ It would be funny if the situation weren’t so tragic. A question occurred to me: if Taisiya ate twelve banknotes, then why did she put the thirteenth one in the chest of drawers. That’s black humour for you.”

The regional court of appeal decided that both the investigation and the lower court had failed to overcome the obvious contradictions. The forensic report from 24 November 2010 states that the confiscated substance was heroin. However, the five bags confiscated during the search and the bags of drugs, which Timchenkova and Zavyagin – the undisclosed witnesses – supposedly got from Osipova during ‘the test purchases’ organised by Centre “E” from October to November, contained different kinds of heroin – both natural as well as synthetically manufactured. There is no explination as to why the forensic examination of the substance only took place after Taisiya’s arrest and not immediately after Zvyagin and Timchenkova had supposedly obtained it from Osipova.

The anaylsis of this substance was conducted by forensic experts without any witnesses present and at a time when it was being transferred from bag to bag. This suggests that the evidence was tampered with.

The investigators asked the team of experts carrying out technical assessments on the confiscated computer a question, the relevance of which is not entirely obvious to a narcotics investigation: “Does the computer in question contain information regarding the activity of the National Bolshevik Party which might incite national and religious discord, and furthermore, are there any symbols on the computer which bear resemblance to the Nazi swatstika or any corruption of it (most frequently used words and phrases: illegal immigrants, Russians, illegal residents, ‘Strategy-31’, ‘The Dissenters’ March’, manifestation, protest) . . . ?”

There was no clarification as to why police investigator Savchenkov helped himself to some of Limonov’s books during the search, which he also subsequently ‘forgot’ about just as he had forgotten about the witness for the defence, Anton Mandrik.

On 12 January 2010, Judge Voitenko of Smolensk’s regional court signed a court order allowing Osipova’s phone calls to be monitored. The order says, among other things, that: “The information we have acquired tells us that Osipova is Sergei Fomchenkov’s wife, through whom he is passing on monetary funds in order to set up a National Bolshevik Party in Smolensk.”

On 31 August 2010 the same judge signed another court order allowing Ospiva’s phone to be tapped. This one is much more informative: “Osipova uses the illegal revenue she gains from dealing drugs to help fund demonstrations planned and carried out by former supporters of the National Bolshevik Party, including the opposition party The Other Russia.”

Nonetheless, no explanation was given as to why the judges refused the defence’s request to play the phone call recordings in court. Moreover, this was not the first time the defence had submitted similar requests but in fact the fifth time: 3 May 2011, 11 August 2011, 26 August 2011, and 21 October 2011. Evidently, the Zadneprovsky Court knows perfectly well that allowing Taisiya’s telephone conversations to be presented to the court in detail would cause quite some embarrassment.

At least then we would have proof that on 22 November 2010, the day before her arrest, Taisiya received a threatening phone call from her acquaintance Khovrenkova, whom Osipova suspects of later becoming ‘witness Timchenkova’, warning her of the impending incident involving the drugs.

The regional court of appeal did not pay particular attention to the ‘anonymous witnesses’ for three reasons. First, the panel of judges did not believe that the witnesses’ “life and safety would be endangered”, as Grani.ru reports. Second, Taisiya Osipova recognised in ‘Timchenkova’ the drug addict Khovrenkova. Third, Osipova saw ‘witness’ Zvyagin owing to an oversight on behalf of the staff at the Department of the Federal Drug Control Service and said that she had never seen the man in her life. The court seriously breached procedural measures by allowing the ‘witness’ to see Osipova in the dock before confirming the defendant’s identity in court. The panel of judges noted in their decision to revoke Osipova’s sentence that “under section 5, article 278 of the Russian Federation Code of Criminal Procedure, the court shall have the right to conduct its cross-examination without making public the identity of the witness to protect his or her safety under conditions, precluding a visual observation of the witness, but which do not, at the same time, exclude his or her immediate participation in the trial. The cross-examination of the anonymous witnesses was carried out in the absence of the accused and thus prevented her from exercising her right to defence.”

The panel noted that significant contradictions in the testimonies given by witnesses for the prosecution had not been resolved, in particular descrepancies in the description of the woman from whom Timchenkova obtained the drugs. The phone calls of those supposedly present at the police search at Osipova’s address have been traced. They prove that it would have been physically impossible for them to have been there at this time, since mobile phone tracking reveals that they were on the other side of town.

The crime and the search protocol were not the only things falsified in Osipova’s case. Documents were also completely falsified, for example the local police officer Pisarev’s character reference for Osipova. Pisarev himself testified in court that he could not possibly have signed the character reference because he had already resigned from the police force when it was issued.

What we have here now are grounds to take legal action against police investigator Savchenkov and his colleagues not only for planting drugs and for the theft of six of Limonov’s books but also for giving false evidence in court and forgery. But in Russia we can only keep dreaming of justice and this time, in Osipova’s case, these dreams are getting smaller and smaller.

Source: Kasparov.ru

Editor’s Note. This translation has been slightly edited for republication here.

1 Comment

Filed under political repression, Russian society

The Moscow Times on the Pussy Riot Verdict

No one disputes that the Pussy Riot musicians deserved to be punished for their “punk prayer” in Christ the Savior Cathedral in February. The young women purposely flaunted Orthodox traditions with their clothing, language and decision to perform in an area of the church regarded as sacred . . .
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/pussy-riots-crime-and-unfair-punishment/466802.html

It was hardly forgivable before, but after this past Friday it is truly monstrous to write something like that.

1 Comment

Filed under political repression, Russian society

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova: Letter from Pre-Trial Detention Facility No. 6 (16.08.2012)

It is not the fact that I am in prison that makes me angry. I hold no grudge. I feel no personal anger. But I do feel political anger.

Our imprisonment serves as a clear and obvious sign that the whole country is being robbed of freedom. And this threat of the liberating, emancipatory forces in Russia being annihilated—that is what causes me to be enraged. Seeing the great in the small, the trend in the sign, the common in the particular.

Second-wave feminists said the personal is the political. That is how it is. The Pussy Riot case has shown how the individual troubles of three people facing charges of hooliganism can give life to a political movement. A single case of repression and persecution against those who had the courage to speak out in an authoritarian country has shaken the world: activists, punks, pop stars and government ministers, comedians and environmentalists, feminists and masculinists, Islamic theologians and those Christians who are praying for Pussy Riot. The personal has indeed become the political. The Pussy Riot case has brought together forces so multi-directional, I still have trouble believing this is not a dream. The impossible is happening in contemporary Russian politics: the demanding, persistent, powerful and consistent impact of society on the authorities.

I am thankful to everyone who has said “Free Pussy Riot!” Right now, all of us are participating in a large and important political Event that the Putin regime is having an ever more difficult time controlling. Whatever the verdict for Pussy Riot, we—and you—are already winning. Because we have learned how to be enraged, and to speak politically.

Pussy Riot is happy that we have been able to spur a truly collective action, and that your political passion was so strong that it overcame the barriers of language, culture, lifeworlds, and economic and political status. Kant would have said that he saw no other reason for this Miracle besides the moral principle within humankind. Thank you for this Miracle.

_____

The original of this letter was published on the LiveJournal blog of attorney Mark Feygin.

Translated from the Russian by Katya Kumkova. Our heartfelt thanks to her for sending this to us.

Leave a comment

Filed under feminism, gay rights, international affairs, open letters, manifestos, appeals, political repression, protests, Russian society

Peaches, “Free Pussy Riot!”

Peaches, “Free Pussy Riot!”

Leave a comment

Filed under activism, feminism, gay rights, film and video, international affairs, open letters, manifestos, appeals, political repression, protests, Russian society

Open Letter to Black Umbrella Board of Trustees, Taylor & Francis Group, and Arts Council England

It is with growing alarm and concern that we, members of the Third Text Advisory Council and close supporters of Third Text, have watched the Board of Trustees take unilateral actions that are hurtful to Founding Editor Rasheed Araeen and damaging to the shared artistic, intellectual and political vision of this journal.

We write this letter to say that we will not allow the continuing disrespect of Rasheed or the undermining of the shared principles that form the core of Third Text’s ethos and politics. We will take collective steps to defend the vision of the journal and make it clear to its global readership that this vision is being seriously compromised.

Third Text has been published since 1987 by Black Umbrella, an organization founded in 1984 to fight the routine institutional exclusion of non-Western artists in the London art world. Since 2002, Taylor & Francis have published Third Text on behalf of Black Umbrella, with funding from Arts Council England.

It is crucial to remember that Black Umbrella and Third Text were founded in a long political struggle against discrimination and exclusion, a struggle in which Rasheed Araeen played an integral role. Third Text stands for a globalized art and culture of liberation and justice. That is why we care about it and will defend it. Moreover, if today Third Text represents a truly global conception of art and critical practice unequalled by any other journal published, and has earned a truly global readership, this achievement reflects Rasheed’s tireless work and commitment over decades. We, the writers, advisors, and supporters of Third Text, understand this and underscore here our deep respect for Rasheed’s founding vision and leadership.

In this light, the actions of the Trustees since July 2011 aiming to oust Rasheed constitute a fundamental alteration of the vision and character of Third Text. This conservative agenda is visually confirmed in the face that scowls from the latest issue of the journal, replacing the world map that has graced its cover since its founding.

We are not concerned with the small details and disputes of this crisis. We are concerned with the large actions that have done damage and threaten the vision we share. The essential chronology is as follows:

In July 2011, the Trustees took the extraordinary unilateral action of dismissing Rasheed Araeen as Executive Director of Black Umbrella, in effect locking him out of the day-to-day running of the journal. They did this without consulting with the Third Text Editorial Board or Advisory Council and without any attempt to publicly explain or justify such a drastic action.

Nearly a year later, in June 2012, Rasheed wrote and circulated a letter notifying us of the Trustees’ action and the subsequent failure of all attempts to resolve the disputes. For most of us, this was the first we heard of the crisis within the journal.

Mario Pissarra, the managing director of Africa South Art Initiative (ASAI) and Lize van Robbroeck, editor in chief of Third Text Africa, responded with an open letter calling on the Trustees to explain their actions and urging writers and Advisors in the meantime to refrain from submitting or recommending further articles to the journal.

The Trustees responded to Pissarra and van Robbroeck’s letter on 2 August 2012. While professing allegiance to Rasheed’s vision, they nevertheless presumed to be its true interpreters and caretakers and proceeded to condemn Rasheed in bureaucratic and legal language.

Four days later, five of the nine members of the Third Text Editorial Board rejected these explanations by resigning in protest. In their letter of 6 August, they called for an independent investigation and review of the management and editorial structure of the journal, including the role of the Trustees.

This is the context of the present letter and collective action. In our view, what has taken place is unacceptable. Clearly, there were major divergences and sharp disputes regarding funding strategies in the current financial crisis and official turn to austerity. But no such differences justify the removal, without consultation or justification, of the man who more than any other defined the vision we share and established the standards of the journal we know and love.

Far more than the Trustees – who hold their positions because Rasheed was generous enough to so honor them – we, the writers, readers and Advisory Council members of Third Text, are the practice and life of this journal. Without us, its pages will lose much of the diversity and commitment that have contributed over the years to its intellectual vitality. We know this and will not stand by and passively watch the transformation of an exceptional and necessary journal into one more depoliticized concession to market forces. If Third Text is to be made to betray its vision, then it will be without us – and the parting of ways will then be real.

There is one way to avoid that. The Trustees must fully and immediately reinstate Rasheed Araeen in his former positions as the Executive Director of Black Umbrella and working Founding Editor of Third Text. This would be the first step in assuring us that the vision of the journal has been protected. It would also open the door to a more dialogic and consultative process of negotiation and resolution.

Should the Trustees fail to reinstate Rasheed by 31 August 2012, we will take collective steps to prevent their action from acquiring any appearance of legitimacy. Those of us who are on the Advisory Council will resign our positions. Together with the others who are signing this letter, we will urge a global boycott of the journal among our peers and well-wishers of Third Text across the world.

Third Text Advisory Council Members:
Rustom Bharucha International Research Centre, Berlin, Germany
Guy Brett Honorary Professor, University of the Arts, London, UK
Geeta Kapur art critic and curator, New Delhi, India
Tabish Khair Aarhus University, Denmark
José-Carlos Mariátegui Editor, Third Text Latin America, Lima, Peru
Benita Parry University of Warwick, UK
Mario Pissarra, Africa South Art Initiative, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Gene Ray Berlin, Germany, and Geneva University of Art and Design, Switzerland
John Roberts University of Wolverhampton, UK
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak Columbia University, New York, USA
Julian Stallabrass Courtauld Institute of Art, London, UK
Victor Tupitsyn Professor Emeritus, Pace University, New York, USA
Slavoj Zizek Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, University of London, UK, and University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

Third Text Associates:
Durriya Kazi Third Text Asia, Karachi, Pakistan
Nighat Mir Third Text Asia, Karachi, Pakistan
Everlyn Nicodemus Edinburgh UK, former Third Text Advisory Council member
Nafisa Rizvi Third Text Asia, Karachi, Pakistan
Lize van Robbroeck Editor in Chief, Third Text Africa
Kristian Romare Edinburgh, UK, former Third Text Advisory Council member

Third Text Contributors and Supporters:
Tejpal S. Ajji University of California Los Angeles, USA
Shahidul Alam Pathshala South Asian Media Academy, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Vivien Ashley London, UK
Etienne Balibar, Professor Emeritus, University of Paris, France, and University of California Irvine, USA
Hans Belting Center for Art and Media, Karlsruhe, Germany
Sutapa Biswas Film and Video Umbrella, London, UK
Iain Boal Birkbeck, University of London, UK
Kamal Boullata artist and writer, Menton, France
Anthony Bond Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Susan Buck-Morss Distinguished Professor, Graduate Center, City University of New York, USA
Andrea Buddensieg Center for Art and Media, Karlsruhe, Germany
Liu Ding artist and curator, Beijing, China
Laura Fantone San Francisco Art Institute, USA
Jose Fernandes Dias Lisbon University, Portugal
Peter Fillingham artist, Chatham, Kent, UK
Stephen Foster John Hansard Gallery, University of Southampton, UK
Richard Gott London, UK
Gabo Guzzo artist, London, UK
Brian Holmes art critic, Chicago, USA
Darren Jorgensen University of Western Australia
Pierre Joris State University of New York Albany, USA
Fredja Klikovac Handel Street Projects, London, UK
Carol Yinghua Lu artist and curator, Beijing, China
Juliet Flower MacCannell Professor Emerita, University of California Irvine, USA
Courtney J. Martin Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Fiamma Montezemolo University of California Berkeley, USA
Lynda Morris Norwich University of the Arts, UK
Barbara Murray International Association of Art Critics, UK
Anna Papaeti University of Göttingen, Germany
Clive Phillpot writer and curator, London, UK
Mikkel Bolt Rasmussen Copenhagen University, Denmark
Francesca Recchia journalist and independent scholar, London, UK
Colin Richards University of Cape Town, South Africa
Alaknanda Samarth actor, London, UK
Hamid Severi curator, Tehran, Iran
Gregory Sholette Queens College, City University of New York, USA
Joni Spigler University of California Berkeley, USA
Pep Subirós Gao lletres, Barcelona, Spain
Margarita Tupitsyn curator and art critic, New York, USA
Donovan Ward Africa South Art Initiative, Cape Town, South Africa
Peter Weibel Center for Art and Media, Karlsruhe, Germany
Lara Weibgen Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Chantal Wong Asia Art Archive, Hong Kong, China
Adrian Thomas Wilson University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA
Eddie Yuan San Francisco Art Institute, USA

Via Africa South Art Initiative

Leave a comment

Filed under critical thought, open letters, manifestos, appeals

Pussy Riot Global Day Is August 17 (Tomorrow!)

pointneufparis.jpg

Barcelona: https://www.facebook.com/events/428870363832253/

Berlin: http://www.facebook.com/events/341464445932389/

Brighton: http://www.facebook.com/events/476321332380904/

Brisbane: http://www.facebook.com/events/393769817342711/

Buenos Aires: http://www.facebook.com/events/271199299647295/

Chisinau/Moldova: http://www.facebook.com/events/493393557354880/

Copenhagen: http://www.facebook.com/events/424471940927930/ https://www.facebook.com/events/374520859284447/

Derry, Ireland: http://www.facebook.com/events/102245836592357/

Dublin: http://www.facebook.com/events/274613749309206/

Genéve: http://www.facebook.com/events/110110862469275/

Göteborg: http://www.facebook.com/events/274179756015202/

Hamburg: http://www.facebook.com/events/427926530583502/

Helsinki: https://www.facebook.com/events/424531920915641/

Kaliningrad: http://vk.com/event41762298

Köln/Cologne: http://www.facebook.com/events/349557895119950/

Kiev: http://www.facebook.com/events/227350677388464/

Leeds: http://www.facebook.com/events/155657094558291/

London: https://www.facebook.com/events/337559159661689/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/aug/13/royal-court-pussy-riot-readi…

Madrid: http://www.facebook.com/events/350516441690013/

Marseille: http://www.facebook.com/events/347401892005724/

Melbourne: https://www.facebook.com/events/357491980994134/

Mendoza, Argentina: https://www.facebook.com/events/488788877798731/

Milan: https://www.facebook.com/events/134453260030214/

Moscow: http://www.facebook.com/events/401297053252028/ http://www.facebook.com/events/337847742969653/

München/Munich: http://www.facebook.com/events/142675212539886/

Murmansk: http://vk.com/pussyriot51

Nantes: http://www.facebook.com/events/351885048219480/

New York City: https://www.facebook.com/events/262241200554708/ http://www.facebook.com/events/336406896449171/

Nice: https://www.facebook.com/events/433177160059098/

Odessa: http://vk.com/event41737295 https://www.facebook.com/events/176445712490602/?context=create

Oslo: http://www.facebook.com/events/408330272558296/

Ottawa: https://www.facebook.com/events/273166786116903/

Paris: https://www.facebook.com/events/477310605615546/

Perm: http://vk.com/event41594563

Reykjavik: https://www.facebook.com/events/458139040873098/

Riga: https://www.facebook.com/events/458755374145273

Samara: http://vk.com/freepussyriotsamara

San Francisco: http://www.facebook.com/events/424888970880304/ https://www.facebook.com/events/509970192361811/

Sidney: http://www.facebook.com/events/513418808674744/

Stockholm: https://www.facebook.com/events/345703202177925

St. Petersburg: http://vk.com/freepussyriot170812spb

Tel Aviv: https://www.facebook.com/events/130257380452299/

Toronto : https://www.facebook.com/events/306577532773598/

Toulouse : http://www.facebook.com/events/431789516864929/

Tournai, Belgium : https://www.facebook.com/events/372254449510600/

Tver: http://vk.com/tverforpr

Västerås: https://www.facebook.com/events/367931276613819/

Vilinus: http://www.facebook.com/events/450340734998207/

Warszawa: http://www.facebook.com/events/465259630171770/

Washington: https://www.facebook.com/events/418284021540525/?context=create&ref=book…

Wien/Vienna: http://raw.at/raverse/2012/pussy-riot-solitreffen-am-13-08-12

Via Free Pussy Riot!

1 Comment

Filed under activism, feminism, gay rights, political repression, protests, Russian society

Maria Alyokhina: Closing Statement at the Pussy Riot Trial

nplusonemag.com/pussy-riot-closing-statements

This trial is highly typical and speaks volumes. The current government will have occasion to feel shame and embarrassment because of it for a long time to come. At each stage it has embodied a travesty of justice. As it turned out, our performance, at first a small and somewhat absurd act, snowballed into an enormous catastrophe. This would obviously not happen in a healthy society. Russia, as a state, has long resembled an organism sick to the core. And the sickness explodes out into the open when you rub up against its inflamed abscesses. At first and for a long time this sickness gets hushed up in public, but eventually it always finds resolution through dialogue. And look—this is the kind of dialogue that our government is capable of. This trial is not only a malignant and grotesque mask, it is the “face” of the government’s dialogue with the people of our country. To prompt discussion about a problem on the societal level, you often need the right conditions—an impetus.

And it is interesting that our situation was depersonalized from the start. This is because when we talk about Putin, we have in mind first and foremost not Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin but Putin the system that he himself created—the power vertical, where all control is carried out effectively by one person. And that power vertical is uninterested, completely uninterested, in the opinion of the masses. And what worries me most of all is that the opinion of the younger generations is not taken into consideration. We believe that the ineffectiveness of this administration is evident in practically everything.

And right here, in this closing statement, I would like to describe my firsthand experience of running afoul of this system. Our schooling, which is where the personality begins to form in a social context, effectively ignores any particularities of the individual. There is no “individual approach,” no study of culture, of philosophy, of basic knowledge about civic society. Officially, these subjects do exist, but they are still taught according to the Soviet model. And as a result, we see the marginalization of contemporary art in the public consciousness, a lack of motivation for philosophical thought, and gender stereotyping. The concept of the human being as a citizen gets swept away into a distant corner.

Today’s educational institutions teach people, from childhood, to live as automatons. Not to pose the crucial questions consistent with their age. They inculcate cruelty and intolerance of nonconformity. Beginning in childhood, we forget our freedom.

I have personal experience with psychiatric clinics for minors. And I can say with conviction that any teenager who shows any signs of active nonconformity can end up in such a place. A certain percentage of the kids there are from orphanages.

In our country, it’s considered entirely normal to commit a child who has tried to escape from an orphanage to a psychiatric clinic. And they treat them using extremely powerful sedatives like Aminazin, which was also used to subdue Soviet dissidents in the ’70s.

This is especially traumatizing given the overall punitive tendency and the absence of any real psychological assistance. All interactions are based on the exploitation of the children’s feelings of fear and forced submission. And as a result, their own cruelty increases many times over. Many children there are illiterate, but no one makes any effort to battle this—to the contrary, every last drop of motivation for personal development is discouraged. The individual closes off entirely and loses faith in the world.

I would like to note that this method of personal development clearly impedes the awakening of both inner and religious freedoms, unfortunately, on a mass scale. The consequence of the process I have just described is ontological humility, existential humility, socialization. To me, this transition, or rupture, is noteworthy in that, if approached from the point of view of Christian culture, we see that meanings and symbols are being replaced by those that are diametrically opposed to them. Thus one of the most important Christian concepts, Humility, is now commonly understood not as a path towards the perception, fortification, and ultimate liberation of Man, but on the contrary as an instrument for his enslavement. To quote [Russian philosopher] Nikolai Berdyaev, one could say that “the ontology of humility is the ontology of the slaves of God, and not the sons of God.” When I was involved with organizing an environmentalist movement, I became fundamentally convinced of the priority of inner freedom as the foundation for taking action. As well as the importance, the direct importance, of taking action as such.

To this day I find it astonishing that, in our country, we need the support of several thousands of individuals in order to put an end to the despotism of one or a handful of bureaucrats. I would like to note that our trial stands as a very eloquent confirmation of the fact that we need the support of thousands of individuals from all over the world in order to prove the obvious: that the three of us are not guilty. We are not guilty; the whole world says so. The whole world says it at concerts, the whole world says it on the internet, the whole world says it in the press. They say it in Parliament. The Prime Minister of England greets our President not with words about the Olympics, but with the question, “Why are three innocent women sitting in prison?” It’s shameful.

But I find it even more astonishing that people don’t believe that they can have any influence on the regime. During the pickets and demonstrations [of the winter and spring], back when I was collecting signatures and organizing petitions, many people would ask me—and ask me with sincere bewilderment—why in the world they should care about, what business could they possibly have, with that little patch of forest in the Krasnodar region–even though it is perhaps unique in Russia, perhaps primeval? Why should they care if the wife of our Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev wants to build an official residence there and destroy the only juniper preserve in Russia? These people . . . this is yet another confirmation that people in our country have lost the sense that this country belongs to us, its citizens. They no longer have a sense of themselves as citizens. They have a sense of themselves simply as the automated masses. They don’t feel that the forest belongs to them, even the forest located right next to their houses. I doubt they even feel a sense of ownership over their own houses. Because if someone were to drive up to their porch with a bulldozer and tell them that they need to evacuate, that, “Excuse us, we’re going raze your house to make room for a bureaucrat’s residence,” these people would obediently collect their belongings, collect their bags, and go out on the street. And then stay there precisely until the regime tells them what they should do next. They are completely shapeless, it is very sad. Having spent almost half a year in jail, I have come to understand that prison is just Russia in miniature.

One could also begin with the system of governance. This is that very same power vertical, in which every decision takes place solely through the direct intervention of the man in charge. There is absolutely no horizontal delegation of duties, which would make everyone’s lives noticeably easier. And there is a lack of individual initiative. Denunciation thrives along with mutual suspicion. In jail, as in our country as a whole, everything is designed to strip man of his individuality, to identify him only with his function, whether that function is that of a worker or a prisoner. The strict framework of the daily schedule in prison (you get used to it quickly) resembles the framework of daily life that everyone is born into.

In this framework, people begin to place high value on meaningless trifles. In prison these trifles are things like a tablecloth or plastic dishes that can only be procured with the personal permission of the head warden. Outside prison, accordingly, you have social status, which people also value a great deal. This has always been surprising to me. Another element [of this process] is becoming aware of this government functioning as a performance, a play. That in reality turns into chaos. The surface-level organization of the regime reveals the disorganization and inefficiency of most of its activities. And it’s obvious that this doesn’t lead to any real governance. On the contrary, people start to feel an ever-stronger sense of being lost—including in time and space. In jail and all over the country, people don’t know where to turn with this or that question. That’s why they turn to the boss of the jail. And outside the prison, correspondingly, they go to Putin, the top boss.

Expressing in a text a collective image of the system that . . . well, in general, I could say that we aren’t against . . . that we are against the Putin-engendered chaos, which can only superficially be called a government. Expressing a collective image of the system, in which, in our opinion, practically all the institutions are undergoing a kind of mutation, while still appearing nominally intact. And in which the civil society so dear to us is being destroyed. We are not making direct quotations in our texts; we only take the form of a direct quotation as an artistic formula. The only thing that’s the same is our motivation. Our motivation is the same motivation that goes with the use of a direct quotation. This motivation is best expressed in the Gospels: “For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” [Matthew 7:8] I—all of us—sincerely believe that for us the door will be opened. But alas, for now the only thing that has happened is that we’ve been locked up in prison. It is very strange that in their reaction to our actions, the authorities completely disregard the historical experience of dissent. “[H]ow unfortunate is the country where simple honesty is understood, in the best case, as heroism. And in the worst case as a mental disorder,” the dissident [Vladimir] Bukovsky wrote in the 1970s. And even though it hasn’t been very long, now people are acting as if there was never any Great Terror nor any attempts to resist it. I believe that we are being accused by people without memory. Many of them have said, “He is possessed by a demon and insane. Why do you listen to Him?” These words belong to the Jews who accused Jesus Christ of blasphemy. They said, “We are . . . stoning you . . . for blasphemy.” [John 10:33] Interestingly enough, it is precisely this verse that the Russian Orthodox Church uses to express its opinion about blasphemy. This view is certified on paper, it’s attached to our criminal file. Expressing this opinion, the Russian Orthodox Church refers to the Gospels as static religious truth. The Gospels are no longer understood as revelation, which they have been from the very beginning, but rather as a monolithic chunk that can be disassembled into quotations to be shoved in wherever necessary—in any of its documents, for any of their purposes. The Russian Orthodox Church did not even bother to look up the context in which “blasphemy” is mentioned here—that in this case, the word applies to Jesus Christ himself. I think that religious truth should not be static, that it is essential to understand the instances and paths of spiritual development, the trials of a human being, his duplicity, his splintering. That for one’s self to form it is essential to experience these things. That you have to experience all these things in order to develop as a person. That religious truth is a process and not a finished product that can be shoved wherever and whenever. And all of these things I’ve been talking about, all of these processes—they acquire meaning in art and in philosophy. Including contemporary art. An artistic situation can and, in my opinion, must contain its own internal conflict. And what really irritates me is how the prosecution uses the words “so-called” in reference to contemporary art.

I would like to point out that very similar methods were used during the trial of the poet [Joseph] Brodsky. His poems were defined as “so-called” poems; the witnesses for the prosecution hadn’t actually read them—just as a number of the witnesses in our case didn’t see the performance itself and only watched the clip online. Our apologies, it seems, are also being defined by the collective prosecuting body as “so-called” apologies. Even though this is offensive. And I am overwhelmed with moral injury and psychological trauma. Because our apologies were sincere. I am sorry that so many words have been uttered and you all still haven’t understood this. Or it is calculated deviousness when you talk about our apologies as insincere. I don’t know what you still need to hear from us. But for me this trial is a “so-called” trial. And I am not afraid of you. I am not afraid of falsehood and fictitiousness, of sloppily disguised deception, in the verdict of the so-called court.

Because all you can deprive me of is “so-called” freedom. This is the only kind that exists in Russia. But nobody can take away my inner freedom. It lives in the word, it will go on living thanks to openness [glasnost], when this will be read and heard by thousands of people. This freedom goes on living with every person who is not indifferent, who hears us in this country. With everyone who found shards of the trial in themselves, like in previous times they found them in Franz Kafka and Guy Debord. I believe that I have honesty and openness, I thirst for the truth; and these things will make all of us just a little bit more free. We will see this yet.

Translated by Marijeta Bozovic, Maksim Hanukai, and Sasha Senderovich

Photo courtesy of daylife.com

2 Comments

Filed under activism, contemporary art, critical thought, feminism, gay rights, international affairs, open letters, manifestos, appeals, political repression, protests, Russian society

Free Pussy Riot Public Reading (NYC, August 16, 7:30 p.m.)

FREE PUSSY RIOT Public Reading 

 Worldwide LIVE STREAM starts Thursday August 16 @ 7:30 EDT HERE

Co-sponsored by Amnesty International & Breslin Bar and Dining Room
Liberty Hall at Ace Hotel
Produced by JD Samson and FreePussyRiot.org


Flyer by Ginger Brooks Takahashi

Tomorrow night, August 16th @ 7:30pm EDT, on the eve of the trial’s verdict, Pussy Riot’s inspirational court room statements will be read by supporters of the Free Pussy Riot movement, including Chloe Sevigny, Eileen Myles, Karen Finley, Johanna Fateman, Mx Justin Vivian Bond (+ others to be announced) info here.

The event is co-sponsored by Amnesty International & Breslin Bar and Dining Room at Liberty Hall at Ace HotelProduced by JD Samson and FreePussyRiot.org

The verdict for the Pussy Riot trial will be stated on Friday August 17 @ 3pm Moscow Time (8am EST). ALSO: There will be a march and rally on Friday, info here. Free Pussy Riot encourages any artists / activists to join on Thursday evening and Friday in solidarity with the three detained women, Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samutsevich of Pussy Riot.
WHO: 
FREE PUSSY RIOT
In support of the release of the members of the feminist performance art group Pussy Riot: Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samutsevich.
http://www.freepussyriot.org/
https://twitter.com/freepussyriot
#FreePussyRiot
#LetOurSistersGo

WHAT: 

On the eve of the verdict in the Pussy Riot trial, an energetic evening of readings of the inspirational court room statements by the detained women of Pussy Riot. The narrated program will also include selected prison letters and other translated material along with court room attendees written observations.

 The event will be streamed live HERE.

Writers:
Katja Samutsevich
Nadia Tolokonnikova
Masha Alyokhina

Confirmed Readers:
Chloe Sevigny
Eileen Myles
Karen Finley
Johanna Fateman
Mx Justin Vivian Bond

WHERE: 
Breslin Bar and Dining Room presents Liberty Hall at the Ace Hotel
20 West 29th Street
New York, NY 10001

WHEN:
Thursday, August 16th
Doors open at 7:30pm EDT
Free and open to the public

***
Additional information about Pussy Riot:

For more information, to talk with the Free Pussy Riot liaison or the event’s organiser JD Samson, please contact Inge Colsen – inge@girlie.com and cell: 212-203-5240

Leave a comment

Filed under activism, contemporary art, feminism, gay rights, international affairs, open letters, manifestos, appeals, political repression, protests, Russian society

Open Letter in Support of Pussy Riot (Rodchenko School for Photography and Media Art)

An Open Letter in Support of Pussy Riot
by Faculty of the Rodchenko School for Photography and Media Art, Moscow, and Other Members of the Russian Art Community

We, faculty of the Rodchenko School of Photography and Multimedia and other members of the Russian art community, are extremely alarmed by the trial of the three young women accused of hooliganism as a result of their performance in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Many of us know one of them, our alumna artist Ekaterina Samutsevich, quite well, but we also know the others, Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, from their performances. We write this letter to express our complete solidarity with them and also to elaborate on a few points belonging to our field of professional competence.

The accusations against Pussy Riot are false and hypocritical. They are based on “sacrilege,” a term that does not exist in current criminal law. They are a disguised form of political repression: nobody would have persecuted these women had they asked the Virgin Mary to defend Putin, even in a non-traditional manner. The trial against Pussy Riot is a trial against dissidents, and the way the defendants have been treated and detained has been unreasonably severe. As citizens, we are outraged by this repressive trial and, like many other people in our country and around the world, we demand an end to this shameful mockery of justice, and the full vindication and release of Pussy Riot.

People involved in contemporary art in Russia have particular reason to be outraged and alarmed. During the trial, the phrase “contemporary art” was always, when uttered by the prosecution, accompanied by the mocking addendum “so-called.” Its very right to exist was thus questioned. It was implied that contemporary art is a species of hooliganism, which, to make matters worse, is supported “from abroad.” We therefore deem it necessary to speak out on this issue.

Contemporary art, by its very nature, is a public statement about the present day. Its themes and forms may vary, but if the present day is such as it appears in Russia today—a present day characterized by lawlessness, lack of political choice, criminal oppression of citizens by the authorities, the absence of impartial courts, obscurantism and fundamentalism—then the artist has no choice but to stop worrying about formal nuances and become a political artist. It would be impossible and immoral to draw boundaries here, and we refuse to accept the other notions of art, safer for the authorities, that are being imposed on us.

Art is always an act, a deed. To be heard in contemporary Russia, the artist is forced to engage in extreme acts. This has been proven by the huge impact that Pussy Riot’s action has had.

However, we support Pussy Riot not because we think they are entitled to special rights with respect to other citizens—for instance, the right of “provocation.” Mindless provocation has never been the goal of real artists. As artists, Pussy Riot have no special rights, but they do have a special duty—the duty to represent a society whose political will is shackled, a society deprived of freedom and justice, a society with a poor understanding of human rights, a society whose mouth is politically gagged and whose eyes are blinded by mendacious TV channels. Pussy Riot upheld this duty in full. Thanks to their deed and the authorities’ reaction to it, there are now people in all parts of the country who have begun to understand what is happening to them.

As experts, many of us are constantly asked how we assess the quality of Pussy Riot’s performance. Some of us thought from the very outset that it was outstanding, while others of us have changed their opinion over time. The quality of an artwork is not contained in the work itself, but is reflected, rather, in its power, its impact, in commentaries by the artist who made it, and, to a great extent, in the public’s reaction to it. Pussy Riot’s action is an incredibly powerful work of protest art and activist art: it has revealed such profound ills in our society that its impact will continue to be felt for a long time to come. It is only thanks to Pussy Riot that we have begun to discuss things that have not been open to debate for many years. During the months of their detention, as the authorities and the Russian Orthodox Church became more and more relentless, Pussy Riot’s action acquired more and more value, and they themselves grew in our eyes tremendously. Throughout the trial, their public statements and comments were clear, philosophically profound and morally impeccable. We are proud of them. Those speeches will undoubtedly, like the action in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, find their place in the history of Russian social life.

We also need to stress out that our support for Pussy Riot does not imply an anti-clerical stance; the same is true of the unfairly accused artists. The stance taken by the Russian Orthodox Church in this case contradicts the feelings, thoughts, interests and faith of many ordinary believers, whose eyes have opened by the Pussy Riot case to the real state of affairs in the country and the church. Splitting society (and the art world) into believers and non-believers benefits only the authorities and the corrupt leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church. Pussy Riot spoke on behalf of everyone, and we support them in this.

Contemporary art is not art only for non-believers, or only for the educated, or only for the rich. It is for those who are concerned about what is happening in the present. Contemporary art should be the conscience of society, and that conscience can tell society unpleasant or painful things, sometimes in a way that is irritating and uncomfortable. It is not separated from the common people: it is the first to feel pain, express it and thus attempt to heal it. We are glad that Pussy Riot—as we have come to know them during the trial—have finally shown us the image of what the artist in Russia should be: not a senseless provocateur and prankster, but an orator, a citizen, a hero.

The impact of their action is such that it we believe it absolutely right that Pussy Riot be nominated for the Kandinsky Prize in the “Project of the Year” category. It is also necessary to answer the frequent accusation that artists work for awards. All those involved in contemporary art in Russia know that, given the near-total absence of grant support and professional education, awards are the only form of material and moral mutual support available to the art community. By nominating Pussy Riot, the art community underlines its solidarity in the face of a common threat. We support this and will do everything possible to increase the contemporary art world’s sense of its strength, solidarity and independence in relation to the current unjust regime.

Many of us—Russian artists, curators and critics—work in an international context and know quite well how our country is regarded in cultural circles around the world. Russia’s reputation is now very bad and is already approaching that of Belarus, which is a blank spot on the cultural map.

We declare with all seriousness that a guilty verdict in the Pussy Riot trial, no matter how “light” the subsequent punishment allegedly is, will cause irreparable damage to Russia’s international reputation (if that reputation can still be saved) and put an end to our country’s integration into the international cultural context. It will be a verdict on the entire country, on all of us. A cultural boycott is no mere empty phrase if there is no other way to influence what is happening in our country.

We demand that the court completely vindicate Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova.

Signed:

Sergei Bratkov
Daniil Bolshakov
Aristarkh Chernyshev
Ekaterina Degot
Vladislav Efimov
Aleskandr Evangely
Antonio Geusa
Dmitry Kabakov
Evgenia Kikodze
Ilya Korobkov
Sergei Khachaturov
Anastasia Khoroshilova
Roman Minaev
Elizaveta Morozova
Valery Nistratov
Lyubov Pchelkina
Kirill Preobrazhensky
Igor Vyazanichev
David Riff
Alexei Shulgin
Andrei Smirnov
Yuri Spitsin
Irina Uspenskaya
Lyudmila Zinchenko

The original letter, in Russian, was first published on the web site of Novaya Gazeta on August 11.

2 Comments

Filed under activism, contemporary art, critical thought, international affairs, open letters, manifestos, appeals, political repression, protests, Russian society

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova: Closing Statement at the Pussy Riot Trial

eng-pussy-riot.livejournal.com

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova
Closing Statement
8 August 2012, Khamovnichesky Courthouse, Moscow

Essentially, it is not three singers from Pussy Riot who are on trial here. If that were the case, what’s happening would be totally insignificant. It is the entire state system of the Russian Federation which is on trial and which, unfortunately for itself, thoroughly enjoys advertising its cruelty towards human beings, its indifference to their honour and dignity, the very worst that has happened in Russian history to date. To my deepest regret, this mock trial is close to the standards of the Stalinist troikas. Thus, we have our investigator, lawyer and judge. And then, what’s more, what all three of them do and say and decide is determined by a political demand for repression. Who is to blame for the performance at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour and for our being put on trial after the concert? The authoritarian political system is to blame. What Pussy Riot does is oppositional art or politics that draws upon the forms art has established. In any event, it is a form of civil action in circumstances where basic human rights, civil and political freedoms are suppressed by the corporate state system.

Many people, relentlessly and methodically flayed alive by the destruction of liberties since the turn of the century, have rebelled.

We were looking for authentic genuineness and simplicity and we found them in our punk performances. Passion, openness and naivety are superior to hypocrisy, cunning and a contrived decency that conceals crimes. The state’s leaders stand with saintly expressions in church, but their sins are far greater than ours. We’ve put on our political punk concerts because the Russian state system is dominated by rigidity, closedness and caste. Аnd the policies pursued serve only narrow corporate interests to the extent that even the air of Russia makes us ill.

We are absolutely not happy with—and have been forced into living politically by—the use of coercive, strong-arm measures to handle social processes, a situation in which the most important political institutions are the disciplinary structures of the state—the security agencies, the army, the police, the special forces and the accompanying means of ensuring political stability: prisons, preventive detention and mechanisms to closely control public behaviour. Nor are we happy with the enforced civic passivity of the bulk of the population or the complete domination of executive structures over the legislature and judiciary. Moreover, we are genuinely angered by the fear-based and scandalously low standard of political culture, which is constantly and knowingly maintained by the state system and its accomplices. Look at what Patriarch Kirill has to say: “The Orthodox don’t go to rallies.” We are angered by the appalling weakness of horizontal relationships within society. We don’t like the way in which the state system easily manipulates public opinion through its tight control of the overwhelming majority of media outlets. A perfect example is the unprecedentedly shameless campaign against Pussy Riot, based on the distortion of facts and words, which has appeared in nearly all the Russian media, apart from the few independent media there are in this political system.

Even so, I can now state—despite the fact that we currently have an authoritarian political situation—that I am seeing this political system collapse to a certain extent when it comes to the three members of Pussy Riot, because what the system was counting on, unfortunately for that system, has not come to pass. Russia as a whole does not condemn us. Every day more and more people believe us and believe in us, and think we should be free rather than behind bars. I can see this from the people I meet. I meet people who represent the system, who work for the relevant agencies. I see people who are in prison. And every day there are more and more people who support us, who hope for our success and especially for our release, who say our political act was justified. People tell us, “To start with, we weren’t sure you could have done this,” but every day there are more and more people who say, “Time is proving to us that your political gesture was correct. You have exposed the cancer in this political system and dealt a blow to a nest of vipers, who then turned on you.” These people are trying to make life easier for us in whatever way they can and we are very grateful to them for that…

We are grateful to all those who, free themselves, speak out in our support. There are a vast number, I know. I know that a huge number of Orthodox people are standing up for us. They are praying for us outside the courtroom, for the members of Pussy Riot who are incarcerated. We’ve seen the little booklets Orthodox people are handing out with prayers for those in prison. This shows that there isn’t a unified social group of Orthodox believers as the prosecution is endeavouring to say. No such thing exists. More and more believers are starting to defend Pussy Riot. They don’t think what we did deserves even five months in detention, much less the three years in prison the prosecutor would like. And every day, more and more people realize that if this political system has ganged up to this extent against three girls for a 30-second performance in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, it means the system is afraid of the truth and afraid of our sincerity and directness. We haven’t dissembled, not for a second, not for a minute during this trial, but the other side is dissembling too much and people can sense it. People can sense the truth. Truth really does have some kind of ontological, existential superiority over lies and this is written in the Bible, in the Old Testament in particular. In the end, the ways of truth always triumph over the ways of wickedness, guile and lies. And with each day that passes, the ways of truth are more and more triumphant even though we are still behind bars and are likely to be here a lot longer yet.

Madonna performed yesterday (7 August). She appeared with Pussy Riot written on her back. More and more people can see that we are being held here unlawfully and on a completely false charge—I’m overwhelmed by this. I am overwhelmed that truth really does triumph over lies even though physically we are here in a cage. We are freer than the people sitting opposite us for the prosecution because we can say everything we like, and we do, but those people sitting there say only what political censorship allows them to say. They can’t speak words like “punk prayer” or “Virgin Mary, Banish Putin!” They can’t say the lines from our punk prayer that have to do with the political system. Perhaps they think it wouldn’t be a bad thing to send us to jail because we are rising up against Putin and his system as well but they can’t say so because that’s not allowed either. Their mouths are sewn shut. Unfortunately, they are mere puppets. I hope they realize this and also take the road to freedom, truth and sincerity because these are superior to stasis, contrived decency and hypocrisy. Stasis and the search for truth are always in opposition to one another and, in this case, at this trial, we can see people who are trying to find the truth and people who are trying to enslave those who want to find the truth.

Humans are beings who always make mistakes. They are not perfect. They strive for wisdom but never actually have it. That’s precisely why philosophy came into being, precisely because philosophers are people who love wisdom and strive for it, but never actually possess it, and it is what makes them act and think and, ultimately, to live the way they do. This is what made us go into the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, and I think that Christianity, as I’ve understood it from studying the Old and New Testaments, supports the search for truth and a constant overcoming of the self, overcoming what you used to be. Christ didn’t associate with prostitutes for nothing. He said, ‘I help those who have gone astray and forgive them’ but for some reason I can’t see any of that at our trial, which is taking place under the banner of Christianity. I think the prosecutor is defying Christianity. The lawyer wants nothing to do with the injured parties. Here’s how I understand this: Two days ago, Lawyer Taratukhin made a speech in which he wanted everyone to understand that he had no sympathy with the people he is representing. This means he’s not ethically comfortable representing people who want to send the three members of Pussy Riot to jail. Why they want to do this, I don’t know. Perhaps it is their right. The lawyer was embarrassed, the shouts of “Shame! Executioners!” had got to him, which goes to show that truth and goodness always triumph over lies and evil.

I think some higher powers are guiding the speeches of the lawyers for the other side when, time after time, they make mistakes in what they say and call us the “injured parties”. Almost all the lawyers are doing it, including Lawyer Pavlova who is very negatively disposed towards us. Nevertheless, some higher powers are causing her to say “the injured parties” about us rather than the people she’s defending. I wouldn’t give people labels. I don’t think there are winners or losers here, injured parties or accused. We just need to make contact, to establish a dialogue and a joint search for truth, to seek wisdom together, to be philosophers together, rather than stigmatizing and labelling people. This is one of the worst things people can do and Christ condemned it.

We have been subjected to abuse during this trial. Who would have thought that a person and the state system he controls would be repeatedly capable of entirely wanton evil? Who would have thought that history and Stalin’s fairly recent Great Terror, in particular, not so very long ago, would not be taught at all? It makes you want to weep to see how the methods of the medieval inquisition are brought out by the law-enforcement and judicial system of the Russian Federation, which is our country. Since the time of our arrest, however, we can no longer weep. We’ve forgotten how to cry. At our punk concerts we used to shout as best we could about the iniquities of the authorities and now we’ve been robbed of our voice.

This whole trial refuses to hear us and I mean hear us, which involves understanding and, moreover, thinking. I think every individual wants to attain wisdom, to be a philosopher, not just people who happen to have studied philosophy. That’s nothing. Formal education is nothing in itself and Lawyer Pavlova is constantly accusing us of not being sufficiently well-educated. I think though that the most important thing is the desire to know and to understand, and that’s something people can do for themselves outside of educational establishments, and the trappings of academic degrees don’t mean anything in this instance. Someone can have a vast fund of knowledge and for all that not be human. Pythagoras said that ‘the learning of many things does not teach understanding’. Unfortunately, that’s something we are forced to observe here. It’s just a stage setting and bits of the natural world, bodies brought into the courtroom. If, after many days of asking, talking and doing battle our petitions are examined, they are inevitably rejected.

The court, on the other hand—and unfortunately for us and for our country—listens to the prosecutor who repeatedly distorts our comments and statements with impunity in a bid to neutralize them. There is no attempt to conceal this breach in an adversarial system. They even seem to be showing it off. On 30th July, the first day of the trial, we presented our response to the accusations. Prior to that we were in prison, in confinement. We can’t do anything there. We can’t make statements. We can’t make films. We don’t have the internet in there. We can’t even give our lawyer a bit of paper because that’s banned too. Our first chance to speak came on 30th July. The document we’d written was read out by defence lawyer Volkova because the court refused outright to let the defendants speak. We called for contact and dialogue rather than conflict and opposition. We reached out a hand to those who, for some reason, assume we are their enemies. In response they laughed at us and spat in our outstretched hands. “You’re disingenuous,” they told us. But they needn’t have bothered. Don’t judge others by your own standards. We were always sincere in what we said, saying exactly what we thought, out of childish naïvety, sure, but we don’t regret anything we said, even on that day. We are reviled but we do not intend to speak evil in return. We are in desperate straits but do not despair. We are persecuted but not forsaken. It’s easy to humiliate and crush people who are open, but when I am weak, then I am strong.

Listen to us rather than to Arkady Mamontov talking about us. Don’t twist and distort everything we say. Let us enter into dialogue and contact with the country, which is ours too, not just Putin’s and the Patriarch’s. Like Solzhenitsyn, I believe that in the end, words will crush concrete. Solzhenitsyn wrote, “the word is more sincere than concrete, so words are not trifles. Once noble people mobilize, their words will crush concrete.”

Katya, Masha and I are in jail but I don’t consider that we’ve been defeated. Just as the dissidents weren’t defeated. When they disappeared into psychiatric hospitals and prisons, they passed judgement on the country. The era’s art of creating an image knew no winners or losers. The Oberiu poets remained artists to the very end, something impossible to explain or understand since they were purged in 1937. Vvedensky wrote: “We like what can’t be understood, What can’t be explained is our friend.” According to the official report, Aleksandr Vvedensky died on 20 December 1941. We don’t know the cause, whether it was dysentery in the train after his arrest or a bullet from a guard. It was somewhere on the railway line between Voronezh and Kazan. Pussy Riot are Vvedensky’s disciples and his heirs. His principle of ‘bad rhythm’ is our own. He wrote: “It happens that two rhythms will come into your head, a good one and a bad one and I choose the bad one. It will be the right one.” What can’t be explained is our friend. The elitist, sophisticated occupations of the Oberiu poets, their search for meaning at the edge of sense was ultimately realized at the cost of their lives, swept away in the senseless Great Terror that’s impossible to explain. At the cost of their own lives, the Oberiu poets unintentionally demonstrated that the feeling of meaninglessness and alogism, like a pain in the backside, was correct, but at the same time led art into the realm of history. The cost of taking part in creating history is always staggeringly high for people. But that taking part is the very spice of human life. Being poor while bestowing riches on many, having nothing but possessing everything. It is believed that the Oberiu dissidents are dead, but they live on. They are persecuted but they do not die.

Do you remember why the young Dostoyevsky was given the death sentence? All he had done was to spend all his time with Socialists—and at the Friday meetings of a friendly circle of free thinkers at Petrushevsky’s, he became acquainted with Charles Fourier and George Sand. At one of the last meetings, he read out Gogol’s letter to Belinsky, which was packed, according to the court, and, please note, “with childish utterances against the Orthodox Church and the supreme authorities”. After all his preparations for the death penalty and ten dreadful, impossibly frightening minutes waiting to die, as Dostoyevsky himself put it, the announcement came that his sentence had been commuted to four years hard labour followed by military service.

Socrates was accused of corrupting youth through his philosophical discourses and of not recognizing the gods of Athens. Socrates had a connection to a divine inner voice and was by no means a theomachist, something he often said himself. What did that matter, however, when he had angered the city with his critical, dialectical and unprejudiced thinking? Socrates was sentenced to death and, refusing to run away, although he was given that option, he drank down a cup of poison in cold blood, hemlock.

Have you forgotten the circumstances under which Stephen, follower of the Apostles, ended his earthly life? “Then they secretly induced men to say, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.’ And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and dragged him away, and brought him before the Council. And they put forward false witnesses who said, ‘This man incessantly speaks against this holy place, and the Law.’” He was found guilty and stoned to death.

And I hope everyone remembers what the Jews said to Jesus: “We’re stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy.” And finally it would be well worth remembering this description of Christ: “He is possessed of a demon and out of his mind.”

I believe that if leaders, tsars, elders, presidents and prime ministers, the people and the judges really understood what “I desire mercy not sacrifice” meant, they would not condemn the innocent. Our leaders are currently in a hurry only to condemn and not at all to show mercy. Incidentally, we thank Dmitry Anatolievich Medvedev for his latest wonderful aphorism. If Medvedev gave his presidency the slogan: “Freedom is better than non-freedom”, then, thanks to Medvedev’s felicitous saying, Putin’s third term has a good chance of being known by a new aphorism: “Prison is better than stoning.”

I would like you to think carefully about the following reflection by Montaigne from his Essays written in the 16th century. He wrote: “You are holding your opinions in too high a regard if you burn people alive for them.” Is it worth accusing people and putting them in jail on the basis of totally unfounded conjectures by the prosecution?

Since in actual fact we never were, and are not, motivated by religious hatred and hostility, there is nothing left for our accusers to do other than to draw on the aid of false witnesses. One of them, Motilda Ivashchenko, was ashamed and didn’t show up in court. That left the false witness of the expert examination by [Vsevolod] Troitsky, [Igor] Ponkin and Mrs [Vera] Abramenkova. And there is no evidence of any hatred or enmity on our part other than this expert examination. For this reason, if it is honourable and just, the court must rule the evidence inadmissible because it is not a strictly scientific or objective text but a filthy, lying bit of paper from the medieval days of the inquisition. There is no other evidence that remotely hints at a motive.

The prosecution is reluctant to produce excerpts from the texts of Pussy Riot interviews because they are primary evidence of this lack of motive. For the umpteenth time, I will quote this excerpt. I think it’s important. It was from an interview with “Russky Reporter”, given the day after the concert at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour: “Our attitude toward religion, and toward Orthodoxy in particular, is one of respect, and for this very reason we are distressed that the great and luminous Christian philosophy is being used so shabbily. We are very angry that something beautiful is being spoiled.” It still makes us angry and we find it very painful to watch.

The lack on our part of any show of hatred or enmity has been attested by all the witnesses examined by the defence. And by the evidence of our characters. In addition to all the other character statements, I’d like you to consider the findings of the psychiatric and psychological tests the investigator ordered me to undergo in detention. The expert’s findings were as follows: the values to which I am committed in my life are justice, mutual respect, humanity, equality and freedom. That’s what the expert said, someone who doesn’t know me and Investigator Ranchenko would probably have very much liked him to write something different. It would appear, however, that there are more people who live and value the truth, and the Bible’s right about that.

Finally, I’d like to quote a Pussy Riot song because, strange as it may seem, all our songs have turned out to be prophetic, including the one that says: “The KGB chief, their number one saint, will escort protestors off to jail”—that’s us. What I’d like to quote now, however, is the next line: “Open the doors, off with the military insignia, join us in a taste of freedom.”

(Agnes Parker: translation/Eja Werner: coordination)

Editor’s Note. We’d like to express our gratitude to the translators for sending this to us and permission to reprint it here.

4 Comments

Filed under activism, censorship, feminism, gay rights, international affairs, open letters, manifestos, appeals, political repression, protests, Russian society